DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Forums - Discs & Movies - new Superman Returns DVD

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Singer said at Comic con that the DVD will NOT include the Krypton sequence, no extended cut and it will not be a deleted scene. It will be however released in IMAX later with the footage so you can bet your dollar that we will see an extended cut on DVD sometime in 2007 and beyond.

Spoiler After Supes learns that Lois has a kid and a boyfriend, Superman flies to her house and "discretely" observes them from the outside. To me it just seemed like he was stalking a girl he couldn't have.

Just saw SR yesterday and my first impressions are that it is merely okay. I should point out that I was expecting a lot from it though.

I appreciated the fact that it took it's time with the characters (as this paid dividends later on towards the end of the film) but it felt as if scenes were still missing. I wanted to see more of Superman's voyage to Krypton for instance. I felt the 'fighting random acts of crime' montage was lacking but can't put a finger on why and agree totally with a couple of reviews that bemoan the screen time given to Jimmy Olsen.

As for the actors I can't really fault them. Yes they are slightly too young for the time frame but I can gloss over that one. I would say that Brandon Routh needs to further distance the characters of Clark and Superman as Christopher Reeve did with his various mannerisms and body language.

Mucic wise I couldn't find much to latch onto with John Ottmans score. The only memorable pieces were the John William reprises. They still have the power to raise goose bumps and make the hairs on your arms stand on end.

My last query of the film would be 'where has the lightness of touch gone. Where's the fun?' Granted Bryan Singer didn't have to slavishly regurgitate the Donner formula (as good as that was) but as he did, why didn't the he find the space within the running time for some character based humour. It was all a bit grim. Maybe this tone was inherant with this particular story and perhaps a sequel could find room for a lighter tone. Not Superman 3 light. Just frisk it up a little.

So, that said, technically, it's a superior film to Seperman: The Movie and part 2 but it falls short in the overall entertainment category. Superman 1 and 2 still reign supreme.

As for the future of this franchise I hope Jude Law does sign on as Zod and that (like part 2) the sequel to Returns will be more energetic.

Chris Gould wrote: Personally I thought it was very enjoyable, although time will tell if that's because it evoked memories of the original, or because it was a good film in its own right.

This is a very good though here. With people like us (and I'll just assume Chris is somewhere around my age), and even with most critics, there is a sense of nostalgia about this movie. Routh even looks a bit like Christopher Reeve which helps with the nostalgia. However, if you look at the revenue, it is doing pretty healthy. Since the box office is mostly driven by teenagers, I doubt that they have the same sense of nostalgia, if they have even seen the Superman movies from the 70s/80s. That must mean that it was also an enjoyable movie absent memories evoked of the older movies.

Why do people keep asking why other people discuss the things they do on these boards as if they're wrong for discussing it? (Sort of like what I'm doing now.) Someone complained the other day about people discussing good/bad cover art and another instance someone didn't like that I and a few others were comparing super hero films. I don't think anyone here said that how much movie a movie made was the test of it's greatness, but I enjoy looking at these massive blockbusters from an investment point of view... I'm sure a few others do as well... C'mon now, did this thread really fall into the bad taste category?

Did I say people couldn't discuss it? I was asking a question: is anyone going to comment on the film, rather than the box office takings? It seems that 'no' is the answer to that question (Adrian aside).

Personally I thought it was very enjoyable, although time will tell if that's because it evoked memories of the original, or because it was a good film in its own right.

stanton heck wrote: WB spent 60M on Developing a SUperman Movie before 1 frame of Superman Returns was shot. That 60m was also added to the cost of SR. To be fair SR production cost is not a high as we think.

According to Entertainment Weekly, that cost is much higher than $60 million. There were at least 3 false starts in which at least the director and sometimes the star were in play or pay deals, so they got their money regardless of whether the movie was made.

Cheddar J. Cheese wrote: stanton heck wrote: I think the movie was good but it doesn't seem to have the WOW factor. I hope there is a sequel. If there is I bet it will be shorter and have more action. Bring on the 3 Super-villians.

There was a rumor that Jude Law would play a powerless Zod imprisioned in returns.

I think Returns was cut for 2hrs 45mins to 2hrs 25 minutes so I imagine we would get at least 15 minutes new footage of Superman searching Krypton. "Returns" was a sequel, General Zod, Ursa, and Non were defeated in "Superman II"(left powerless, fell down a chasm in the Fortress, if they're still alive, they'd still be down there.) It better not be shorter and better have tonnes more character development.

I want to see the movie, but going back to the budget costs. The biggest movie to turn the most profit based on budget to gross so far is The Da Vinci Code. It cost $125 million and brought in $700 million plus worldwide so far.

Chris Gould wrote: Is anyone actually gonna comment on whether the film is any good, rather than going on about how much money it has made/will make?

I really enjoyed the movie (except the super-stalk part!) The only complaints that I have heard from some people is that it is a bit slow in the beginning and is quite long for a superhero movie. Neither of these bothered me very much.

Why do people keep asking why other people discuss the things they do on these boards as if they're wrong for discussing it? (Sort of like what I'm doing now.) Someone complained the other day about people discussing good/bad cover art and another instance someone didn't like that I and a few others were comparing super hero films. I don't think anyone here said that how much movie a movie made was the test of it's greatness, but I enjoy looking at these massive blockbusters from an investment point of view... I'm sure a few others do as well... C'mon now, did this thread really fall into the bad taste category?

We've already discussed the quality of the film, that's in another thread called 'Superman Returns', I believe.

My two cents is if you don't like the topic of a thread, don't read it unless you have to, and in that case, you don't have to comment. I'd like to think the internet is the kind of place where you can discuss just about anything, including but not limited to 'What kind of toilet paper did they use for 2nd Unit on Superman Returns?'. Think they saved the 2ply good stuff for 1st unit, or was everyone taken care of nicely? And secondly, what kind of hand soap was in the bathrooms on set?

Superman Returns is a better movie and has a greater character developement than X3 does. I found myself more emotionally involved with Lois & Superman, than anyone in the X-men movies but X3 was a lot more fun. I think SR was hurt by that and from being released too soon after X3.

Is anyone actually gonna comment on whether the film is any good, rather than going on about how much money it has made/will make?

People seem obsessed with how much money films make nowadays, as if it's a measure of worth or something. We all know it's down to release dates and marketing as much as the quality of the film. Loads of people went to see the Star Wars prequels because they were hyped to death off of the back of the originals, but they were all hugely disappointing from an artistic point of view. X3 made a ton of money, but it's not a good film when compared to the others in the series.

With Superman I'm less concerned with how much it makes and any potential sequels than I am with it being a decent movie.

stanton heck wrote: I think the movie was good but it doesn't seem to have the WOW factor. I hope there is a sequel. If there is I bet it will be shorter and have more action. Bring on the 3 Super-villians.

"Returns" was a sequel, General Zod, Ursa, and Non were defeated in "Superman II"(left powerless, fell down a chasm in the Fortress, if they're still alive, they'd still be down there.) It better not be shorter and better have tonnes more character development.

stanton heck wrote: I think the movie was good but it doesn't seem to have the WOW factor. I hope there is a sequel. If there is I bet it will be shorter and have more action. Bring on the 3 Super-villians.

"Returns" was a sequel, General Zod, Ursa, and Non were defeated in "Superman II"(left powerless, fell down a chasm in the Fortress, if they're still alive, they'd still be down there.) It better not be shorter and have more character development.

For the record, I'm not debating why Supes is going slower than a speeding bullet in generating a profit... just that he is going slow.

Another way to look at it is that Superman has been a loved icon for over seventy years while X-Men haven't had the same popularity in their much shorter existence in our culture and Supes should've beat the mutants at the box office.... but I agree with this and Jersey Jedi's points, as they both hold water.

Also, everyone has to remember that this was a "Requel" to a series that died out almost 20 years ago. X-men, on the other hand, has been steadily gaining momentum since 2000. Also, X-Men has seen an increase in gross for each subsequent installment. I'd predict that when part 2 comes along, Supes will penetrate much more than the first time around.

Dustin wrote: From Tuesday to Tuesday, Superman's one week take was $110 including Imax which is only three million more than X3 made in it's first weekEND. Heck, X3 on it's opening day made 41% of Supermans one week total. THAT is a lackluster opening for big blue.

It's still comparing Apples to Oranges. At least in the US because you have to figure in the 4th of July and that whole week is more like a weekend. If Superman had opened on a weekend, I think the numbers would have been similar.

From Tuesday to Tuesday, Superman's one week take was $110 including Imax which is only three million more than X3 made in it's first weekEND. Heck, X3 on it's opening day made 41% of Supermans one week total. THAT is a lackluster opening for big blue.

Stuart, the film was just shy of $150 million dollars just during pre-production that took place over the last decade. Director's and writers were paid for the work they either never did or didn't get chosen. Just the film itself was around $260 million dollarsso already we're at over $400 million dollars...

As of last weekend, the film had made $141 million dollars, and will go on to make more naturally as it opens around the world... but even Warner has said that the film didn't meet their expectations for box office take.

Some day it'll make a profit, but it's not nearly the marketing cash cow that Begins (even though Begins had a slow box office crawl as well, it made a profit before leaving theaters) was or the 90's Batman flicks. When you plunk so much down for a film like this, you don't want to just break even... you want to turn a massive profit for your efforts and Warner is a ways away from doing that. Heck, X-Men 3 made more money opening weekend than Supes did.

This next bit is going to say it all: Superman took home $52 million opening weekend. X3 took a whopping $107 million. That just shows where the interest is in theaters.

I wish Warner Brothers luck when the film hits DVD, because they're going to need some good marketing schemes to get a decent profit out of this.

with the money the merchandise and tie-ins will make. plus the DVD revenue and television showings. no way will this film make a loss or just break even. Itll make a mint for the studio and restart a money making franchise

I've heard from IGN and several other sources that Returns WILL be in the set, even if Supergirl, as mentioned above in the IGN article won't). I'd tend to believe more reliable sources over message boards... and I doubt that 14 discs will only be four films, the toons, and a documentary. Those numbers just don't add up for me, even with director's cuts.